On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Terry Manderson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Shane, > > I also agree that recursive-to-authority privacy should be done in dprive, > and a my desire here is two fold. So yes the developed, but essentially > not yet deployed, standards need to bake. Additionally I feel that > deployment experience as very important input to the next step. > > I'm also not insisting folks work outside of the working group. I'll leave > it to the chairs to take (or not) informative presentations at future > meetings on related dprive topics, yet surely priority should be given to > the charter as it stands.
Yup, the chairs are perfectly happy for discussions about recursive to auth to happen on this list, for people to write drafts and discuss them, for meeting time to discuss these, etc -- however, we will give priority to stuff which is in our current charter. We will recharter to do the recursive to auth bit, but feel (along with our AD) that we are not quite ready for that yet... So, yes please, discussions and drafts -- and, even more importantly, evidence of deployment of the current stuff... W > > IIRC the consensus at the time for forming dprive as a WG was to first see > a baked stub-recursive solution with experience. I still feel that has > value and feel it's premature to dive into recursive-to-authority in > charter space despite the very good intentions of smart people in this > working group. > > Cheers > Terry > > On 19/07/2016, 6:02 PM, "Shane Kerr" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Terry, >> >>I think it's weird that we have people who have ideas about needed >>standardization work, and we insist that they work outside of a >>chartered working group. >> >>I tend to think that recursive-to-authority privacy work should be done >>in dprive, but if that working group needs to wait for the standards >>they have developed to "bake", then okay. We should work towards a BoF >>for a new working group then, right? >> >>Cheers, >> >>-- >>Shane >> >>At 2016-07-19 07:27:13 +0000 >>Terry Manderson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Thanks for starting to enumerate the options/problems related to >>>recursive >>> resolver to authoritative name server. >>> >>> As AD, I would very much like to see some operational data points and >>>some >>> experience from 'the wild' of deployment to better inform a (re)charter >>> discussion. >>> >>> That said, I am VERY interested to see individuals start work (as you >>>have >>> done) and continue to work in parallel with the above goals. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Terry >>> >>> On 19/07/2016, 6:25 AM, "dns-privacy on behalf of Stephane Bortzmeyer" >>> <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >Isn't it time we start working on the resolver-to-auth link? >>> > >>> >I know that DPRIVE does not meet in Berlin but, if people who are >>> >there (I'm not) want to discuss it, I'll be interested in feedbacks, >>> >flames and pull requests. >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
